db_rebuild_vectors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details three operational steps: clearing vectors (memories preserved), re-embedding, and model info update. Also warns about time consumption. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured: one-sentence purpose, bullet-list of usage scenarios, numbered steps for behavioral transparency, and a concise warning. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has one parameter, an output schema (not shown), and no annotations. The description fully covers purpose, when to use, behavioral steps, and a caveat. No gaps identified given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'batch_size' with a description. The tool description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Rebuild all memory vectors with the current embedding model' – a specific verb and resource. The description lists specific use cases (switching models, fixing errors) that distinguish it from siblings like 'embedding_info' or 'db_maintenance'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides 'Use this when:' with three concrete scenarios (switching embedding model, fixing dimension mismatch, recovering from corruption). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.